e 




? 




A 




iiiiii mi mil urn mi III llli mil mi |||i inn | 
013 744 675 3 i 



pennultfe® 
pH8.5 




E 668 

Copy 1 II 

SPEECH 

op . / 



Hon. REVERDY JOHNSON, 




QUESTIONS CONNECTED 



0f 

Delivered at Towsontown, 

BALTIMORE COUNTY, Md. 
On SATURDAY, November 3d, 1866. 




BALTIMORE ! 

FROM "THE PRINTING OFFICE," 
Sun Iron Building. 
1866. 




i 



u 



SPEECH 



OF 



Hon. REVERDY JOHNSON, 



QUESTIONS CONNECTED 



Delivered at Towsontown, 



BALTIMORE COUNTY, Mil. 



On SATURDAY, November 3d, 186G* 



BALTIMORE : 

FROM "THE PRINTING OFFIC&' 

Sun Ikon Building. 
1866. 



EU 



ERRATA. 

For Permit in 31st Line Page 10, read Forfeit. 
For Color in 7th Line Page 30, read Cool. 



SPEECH OF Hon. REVERDY JOHNSON. 



Fellow Citizens : 

By the request of several gentlemen of our county I am before 
you. Feeling, as all reflecting and patriotic men must, great 
anxiety for the future of our country, they have desired me to 
address you on the topics belonging to the political canvass in 
which we are engaged, and which they believe to be connected 
with that future. I proceed to comply with their request by 
speaking first to the questions which the condition of the whole 
country presents ; and secondly, to those which the peculiar 
condition of our own State presents. 

The first questions are of transcendent importance. They 
involve the present peace and prosperity of the country, and 
probably the ultimate safety of the national Government. To 
these I now address myself. 

In doing this I shall indulge in no asperity of language or in 
any offensive personalities. The topics are too momentous to 
be treated in that mode. Crimination and recrimination are 
not the weapons suited to them. I shall appeal, therefore, to 
your reason and patriotism alone. All that our fathers strug- 
gled for, at a fearful loss of blood and treasure, and supposed 
they had finally achieved when the Constitution of the United 
States was adopted, a well regulated and well secured political 
liberty, may be preserved or lost as the existing perils are soon 
and safely removed or continued and aggravated. There were 
periods during the recent insurrection when a disruption of the 
Union was by many deemed to be imminent. Some of those 
who are now, as L think, advising a policy that must lead to 
that result, were then willing to have the insurrection Micceed. 
Some, ii'a majority of the people of the States where it prevailed 



desired it — others, because of the dreadful consequences of the 
doubtful effort to suppress it by arms, others, perhaps because 
they saw a better opportunity of political advancement in the 
Union of the States in which the institution of slavery did not 
exist than in the existing Union ; and others, again, (original 
abolitionists,) who had often declared the Constitution to have 
been brought about by a " merciless conspiracy against justice 
and honest men," a u covenant with death, an agreement with 
hell," and who, in the words of one of their leaders, and now 
one of the leaders of the radical party of the day, a gentleman 
of rare ability, but of erratic judgment, on the 20th of Jan- 
uary, 1865, rejoiced that by the rebellion it was " broken to 
pieces." 

Upon the part of the South, the insane effort to dissolve the 
Union with many was owing to what they deemed the unjust 
and unconstitutional conduct of the Northern States — destruc- 
tive of Southern rights and prosperity, as well as to the doc- 
trine which they had been educated to believe, that each state 
had a right to separate from the rest when in her judgment it 
was to her interest, and the interest of her people. I charac- 
terize the effort as insane, first because of the great inferiority of 
Southern power, and secondly because the ground on which its 
legality was placed they should have seen was without reason- 
able warrant, and was in its very nature fatal to an effectual 
Union of States, few or many. The attempt has happily failed. 
The insurrection is suppressed. Not an arm in any of the 
states that were engaged in it is now raised in hostility to the 
Constitution and Laws of the Union. What is the legitimate 
consequence of this result. ? To solve the inquiry we are to 
consider — 1st, what right the Government had to suppress the 
insurrection by force? and 2d, what is the present condition of 
the states when force has accomplished it ? These inquiries 
involve — 1st, the meaning of the constitution in the particular 
in question. 2d, what was the purpose of the Government in 
resorting to force. 

We know that the Constitution was adopted to remedy the 
defects which experience had proved belonged to the preceding 
Confederation. In that, most of the powers of the General 



Government could be exerted only through the States, and 
not directly upon the people, and were not compulsory upon 
the States. To give the General Government the power to de- 
clare war against a State of the Union would be inconsistent 
with the Union itself, and destructive of the admitted sover- 
eignty of the States. It would be but a power to inaugurate 
a war between the two Governments that would, in all respects, 
be an international one, giving the State the same right of con- 
quest and subjugation of the Confederacy as the latter would 
have in regard to the State, thus necessarily leading to a disso- 
lution of the Union. Our fathers, therefore, designed to vest 
no such power in either. The articles of Confederation clothed 
the Government with certain authority and duties, but, for the 
most part, left them to be exercised through the States. With 
that view requisitions were to be made on the States, and these, 
as Washington said in a letter to Mr. Jay, of the 1st of August, 
'86, were ''a perfect nullity, where thirteen independent States 
are in the habit of discussing and refusing compliance with 
them at their option." The remedy for this fatal defect was to 
vest in the Government, as far as jurisdiction was given it, all 
the powers belonging to a complete Government, legislative. 
executive and judicial. 

This enables it to act not on or through the states as such, 
but on the citizens individually and directly. In the delibera- 
tions of the Convention which framed the Constitution, it was 
proposed to give the Government the power to use force against 
a delinquent State, but it received no countenance. That pro- 
vision -was a part of the Virginia scheme proposed to the Con- 
vention by the delegation of that State on the 29th of May, '87. 
When it was under deliberation its postponement was success- 
fully moved by Mr. Madison, and it was never renewed. 
]\i making the motion Mr. Madison said, " An Union of the 
States containing such an ingredient seemed to jrrovlde for its 
own destruction. The use -of force against a State would look 
more like declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, 
and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a 
dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be 
bound.' 5 It will be seen that Mr. Madison's objection to it, 



6 

and which led to its failure, was the one I have before stated — 
that such a war would be an international one and carry with 
it all the incidents belonging to a war of that kind. And also 
that the conquest and subjugation of a State by war and hold- 
ing it as a conquered province would, to the extent that one or 
more States might be conquered or subdued, break up the 
Union. For whether a State can legally abandon the Union, 
or be legally expelled from and kept out of it, the result is the 
same — the Union is dissolved — the representation in Congress 
diminished — the area of the Judicial Department abridged, 
and the rights of citizens residing there and elsewhere which 
depend on the continuance of the entire jurisdiction of that 
Department materially contracted, and the power of the Gov- 
ernment more or less curtailed and its character more or less 
changed. The Union that would be left in such a contingency 
would not be the Union which the Constitution designed and 
formed. The Constitution consequently creates a Government 
vested with every necessary power to enforce its jurisdiction 
against individuals and to preserve, and not subvert its own 
existence. It gives it no power to destroy itself and as its in- 
tended life depends upon the continuing existence of the States, 
as its own life is made up of the lives of the States and is to- 
tally or partially lost as the latter shall cease to exist totally 
or partially, a power to bring about either result would be a 
power to destroy itself, or in the language of Mr. Madison, 
would be " an ingredient" providing "for its own destruction." 
Indeed such a power would be fatal to the very objects for 
which the Government was established. These were declared 
to be the formation of "a more perfect union," and to secure 
"the blessings of liberty to" our fathers and their "p'osterity." 
As these objects aud the others with which they are associated 
can only be attained by a continuance of the Government of 
the Union, and the Government of the States as these latter 
existed, the whole from their very form and nature are insepa- 
rable. Their dissociation, therefore, was not only not pro- 
vided for hut was not even .suggested by any member of the 
Convention. Unfounded as the doctrine of State secession in my 
opinion is, that of State expulsion by the General Government 



is, if possible, yet more unfounded. The former had some 
plausibility in the idea of State Sovereignty, and in the implica- 
tion to be inferred from the manner in which the people of the 
States adopted the Constitution. On these two grounds it was 
thought to be warranted, with a show of reason that led astray 
even able and honest minds in every section of the country, but 
at no time until within a few months past was it supposed or 
suggested by any mind, able or feeble, by any man, wise or fool, 
that the Government of the Union had or under any possible 
circumstances could have a right to expel a State from the 
Union, to extinguish its existence, reduce it to mere territory 
to be governed by Congress under any power, express or im- 
plied contained in the Constitution. 

Amidst all the theories, wild and extravagant as many 
have been, which were started before the late rebellion, such a 
doctrine is not to be found. Even those who with Mr. Wendell 
Phillips, often and on the day before stated, January, 1861, 
denounced the Constitution as an "Agreement with hell," 
never intimated that it contained a power (if they had so 
thought they would not have hated it with such intensity,) 
to destroy itself by driving from the Union the States in which 
slavery prevailed, thus rescuing the other States from its 
contamination. The doctrine is of modern growth. It has 
its origin and present support in the pride of a demonstrated 
greater physical strength, in the errors of a wild fanaticism, 
in the lust of party power, and all its supposed advantages. 
As far as I am informed it was first announced in one of a 
series of resolutions offered in the Senate of the United States 
on the 11th of February, 1862, by Mr. Charles Sumner, and 
who again asserted it substantially in the same form on the 
8th of February, 1864. On its first announcement Mr. Willey, 
a Senator from West Virginia, in a speech, charged it to 
be a part of the then policy of the republican party. At 
that period the leading members of the party in the body 
strongly disavowed it. Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, one of 
these and who has since with a consistency that does him 
honor differed with it on this question, deemed it due to 
the interest of his party and a duty to his country to 



8 

deny it, and with that view, on the 25th of June, 1862, 
offered a resolution of a direct contrary character. It denounced 
ordinances of secession as totally void, and asserted that the 
•States enacting them were, "Notwithstanding such acts and 
ordinances, members of the Federal Union and as such subject 
to all the obligations and duties imposed upon them by the 
Constitution of the United States and the loyal citizens of such 
States are entitled to all the rights and privileges thereby 
guaranteed or confirmed." He supported his resolution in an 
able speech. In the course of it he assailed the opposite 
doctrine of Mr. Sumner as being "Fatal to our form of 
Government, destructive of our Federal system and utterly 
incompatible with a restoration of harmonious relations between 
the States in which the rebellion now prevails and the United 
States." Mr. Fessenden, also justly esteemed one of the ablest 
member's of the same party, met the charge of Mr. Willey by 
a direct denial of its truth, and in the course ot his speech 
said that so far from Mr. Sumner's doctrine being a doctrine 
of the party, he did not believe his resolution would receive the 
vote of a single member of the body other than his own. At 
that time the insurrection was being maintained by such displays 
of skill and gallantry that the final result, in the judgment of 
many, was more than doubtful. It was obvious then that the 
maintainance of such a doctrine would serve but to weaken the 
Government and to strengthen the insurrection. It had also, 
even before the insurrection broke out, been disavowed by the 
party which elected Mr. Lincoln. In the resolutions of the 
Chicago Convention of 1860, which nominated him, it was 
declared " That the Federal Constitution , the rights of the States 
and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved,'' " " And 
that the maintainance inviolate of the States" ic Is essential to 
that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of 
our political fabric depends." And when the insurrection was 
progressing and the Government was attempting to suppress it 
by war, each House of Congress, in July 1861, by a vote nearly 
unanimous, passed a resolution which said that, " Banishing 
all feeling of mere passion or resentment," Congress " Will 
recollect only its duty to the whole country." 



"That this war is not waged on our part in any spirit of op- 
pression nor FOR ANY PURPOSE OP CONQUEST OR SUBJUGATION, nor 
"purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or es- 
tablished institutions of the States, but to defend and main- 
tain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the 
"Union icith all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several 
" States unimpaired. That as soon as these objects are accom- 
plished the war ought to cease." That this resolution con- 
tained what at that time was the policy of the party is not only 
apparent from its terms, but from the fact that Mr. Trumbull, 
then as now a member of the Senate when it was under conside- 
ration, moved to strike out the word subjugation and the motion 
failed by a decided vote. Was the pledge thus given made in 
good faith? Was no State to be conquered or subjugated/ 
The war ended, were the States in which the insurrection pre- 
vailed to have all their dignity, equality and rights unimpair- 
ed? It would be to impeach the honor of Congress and of the 
people of the loyal States (for whom they spoke) to answer 
these questions in the negative. And to whom was the pledge 
made? To the people of the States in rebellion. Its design 
was to operate upon and influence them. To disabuse their 
minds of the idea that conquest and subjugation were the objects 
of the Government. And that in the triumph of the Govern- 
ment their States were to be deprived of any of their former 
constitutional rights or of any portion of their former dignity 
and equality. The purpose therefore of the resolution was to 
satisfy those people that on the suppression of the insurrection 
and the consequent restoration of the Government's constitu- 
tional supremacy, the war would cease, and they and their 
States would be as they were before it begun. The purpose 
was even a more enlarged one. The nations of the world were 
the spectators of the conflict. We had treaty and business rela- 
tions with them all. Amongst them public opinion was divided. 
One party esteemed the attempt of the South a violation of their 
constitutional duty. The other the exercise of a clear and in- 
herent right to cast off a Government that they thought 
injurious to their interests and to establish for themselves one 
that would promote them. To stand well in the opinion of 
2 



10 

mankind as every nation should wish, it was deemed import- 
ant to declare in the most solemn form the object of the war. 
Congress therefore appealing to the constitutional obligations 
of the Government in the impending crisis pledged the public 
faith that these fulfilled and the object attained, the reinstate- 
ment of its rightful authority, force would at once cease, and 
the States, all of them, be as they were at first — the same in 
rights, dignity and equality. By our friends abroad this decla- 
ration was received as sincerely made. They did not doubt 
that in every particular it would in good faith be observed. 

Its effect was to inspire the hopes and increase the number of 
such friends and to vindicate our character and defend it from 
the assaults of foreign, angry, prejudiced and hostile criticism. 
Will not all this be frustrated if the pledge is now violated ? 
Will not such a violation seriously impair our honor and lessen 
the esteem in which, by reason of the pledge, our Government 
was then held? I have heard it said, in answer to these sug- 
gestions, that the pledge was made to ourselves alone, was 
designed for ourselves only, and that we have the sole right to 
decide whether to keep or disregard it. How obviously unsound 
in law and morals is such a pretence. If none but ourselves 
were interested, no such pledge was necessary. If we had the 
rightful authority to conquer and subjugate the South, and hold 
it and its people accordingly, when the insurrection should be 
suppressed, it was for us to determine whether we would do so 
or not — no declaration in advance was necessary. The decision 
could be postponed until the war was ended. The announce- 
ment, therefore, was not for our own satisfaction and guidance, 
'but for the satisfaction and guidance, 1st, of the States of 
the South, and 2nd, of other nations. To violate a pledge 
so solemnly given, I submit, would be to permit, for the 
first time in its history, the honor of the republic, to mislead 
the world, anct particularly to deceive the very people (the 
people of the South) to whom the announcement was made, 
and who it was its obvious design to conciliate and influence. 
Its observance, therefore, in good faith, is demanded by the 
good name of the nation. Its honor depends upon it. If ful- 
filled, its reputation is saved, if violated, impaired. But inde- 



11 

pendent of these negations of the doctrine, its unsoundness is 
apparent upon principle. It* sound it is immaterial what may 
be the number of the States that may rebel and be conquered. 
Be the conquering States a minority or a majority of the original 
whole, or if but one State effects the conquest, all the others 
are expunged from the Union. In the latter contingency, the 
Union intended to be composed and hitherto composed of all 
the States, will remain the same Union though but one State 
exists. If that be so, then the Congress of the United States 
will and can only consist of a House of Kepresentatives com- 
posed of members from such State, and of a Senate of two Sen- 
ators. Can a doctrine be Constitutional that leads to such a 
ridiculous and impracticable result. Its error is phrfn also 
from this further view. State secession is conceded by all to be 
a nullity. The doctrine is, that notwithstanding, if it is 
resorted to by a State she ceases to be a State of the Union, and 
lushes her right of representation in Congress. If this be so, 
then her Senators and representatives in Congress, when she 
attempts to secede, must cease to be members of the body, just 
as effectually as if by treaty with, or conquest by, a foreign 
nation, she ceases to be within the territorial limits of the United 
States. For none but States of the Union are entitled to such a rep- 
resentation, and if secession, when frustrated by force, terminates 
that relation, it destroys such right of representation. Is this 
so? Secession is void. If sought to be maintained by force the 
parties engaged in it and all who shall aid and abet them com- 
mit treason against the United States. Would the Senators 
and representatives of seceded States have a right to follow their 
States, and with that view, have a right to resign, thus aiding 
and abetting the treason, or could they be legally made to resign, 
and thus forced to aid and abet it? Would Congress, if they did not 
resign, but retain their seats, have a right to expel them ? To 
retain their seats would be no offence. To follow the State 
would be an offence. As citizens, therefore, they are bound to 
adopt the first course. To pursue the other would be a crime. 
If, then, Messrs. Davis, Toombs, Slidell, and the others who 
did resign had kept their places, notwithstanding the ordinances 
of secession of their respective States, and thus proved true to 



12 

their allegiance to the Union, could or would the Senate have 
expelled them ? Certainly not. President Johnson, who was 
at the time a member of the body, retained his seat though 
Tennessee had seceded — no one proposed or suggested his ex- 
pulsion, or intimated that he was not a rightful member of the 
body ; on the contrary the Senate and country alike honored 
him as being faithful among the faithless, as a fearless and 
patriotic Senator, though in his State and section treason was for 
the time triumphant. Now, what right had he to that seat and 
to be the recipient of such honors ? How happened it that 
neither the now-advocates of the doctrine in question, then in the 
Senate, or elsewhere, never urged his removal or suggested that 
by her secession the relations of Tennessee to the Government 
were so changed that she was no longer a State of the Union, and 
consequently had no right to be represented in the body? These 
several questions admit of no other solution than this, that at 
that time the doctrine had no supporter in Congress or in the 
country. It is now, however, seriously maintained. Leading gen- 
tlemen of the party openly avow it. They assert it to be the true 
policy, and the duty of the Government to act upon it by holding 
the South as a subjugated province, and dealing with its citizens 
as conquered enemies. The doctrine assumes an absolute right of 
dominion over said States. Under it the boundaries of each 
may be contracted or enlarged. The number of States may con- 
sequently be diminished or increased or the whole may be re- 
solved into a single State. In the meantime, too, as far as 
these States are concerned, all the restrictions on congressional 
power and all the guarantees of personal liberty contained in 
the Constitution are annulled. The writ of habeas corpus, and 
trial by jury, cease to be rights. Letters of nobility may be 
granted — bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impair- 
ing the obligation of contracts be passed, the judicial tenure 
be altered, and the restriction upon the trade applying only to 
States, the importation of slaves may be authorized. In a word, 
as Congress shall decide, the United States will consist only of 
the States now represented, or of those and of such others, few 
or many, as they may from time to time carve out of the. States 
at present excluded, and all the rest be held in subjugation : 



13 

and their people governed by absolute, despotic power. And 
this consequence is also incidental to the doctrine that these 
States may be forever denied admission, unless their people con- 
sent to conditions not imposed, and which no one pretends can 
be imposed, on the other States— conditions impairing their 
rights, lessening their dignity and destroying their equality, 
thus making the Union consist not of equal, but of unequal 
States. That all these results plainly and logically flow from 
the doctrine seems to me to be perfectly plain. If so they de- 
monstrate its unsoundness. The advocates of the doctrine 
would also apply to the Southern States though the war is over, 
the laws of war. They would try and execute their citizens 
under sentences of court martial, and sequester all their property 
as prize of war. This, some of their representative men de- 
mand. To effect these ends the passions and cupidity of the 
people of the loyal States are appealed to. The first end is to 
satisfy an alleged public justice, the other to do the same thin"- 
and to satisfy the low vulgar passion of avarice. With some of 
these men it is of no avail that the very terms upon which the 
armies of the insurrectionists surrendered and laid down their 
arms, terms offered by the chosen leaders of the Union forces 
for all antecedent offences promised perfect impunity. This pro- 
mise,though approved by the Government and th e civilized world 
they advise the nation to violate — to substitute for it confiscations 
the halter, or the musket. I have no idea that suggestions so in 
conflict with the civilized laws of war, with the plainest dictates of 
honesty and so abhorrent to humanity, will be carried out. They 
can but disgust every pure minded citizen. But should I be 
mistaken, should they be carried out, then farewell forever to 
our hitherto spotless honor. It would have affixed on it a damn- 
ing spot, which no mere time could efface and no penitence 
atone for, other than shall be exhibited by the general execra- 
tion of those from whom the suggestions may have come. 

It is a consolation, however, and a security, (though not to 
be wondered at,) that from the gallant officers and men who 
periled life in hundreds of battles, subdued the foe, preserved 
their country, and won for themselves a never dying fame, no 
such suggestion has come. In them the characteristic of the 



14 

true soldier shines couspicuous. The battle over, a gallant 
enemy subdued, a magnanimous and christian generosity takes 
the place of war and the hand of a sincere friendship is prof- 
fered, never for any past cause to be withdrawn. Of the few 
from whom the dishonoring thoughts come, and of their mili- 
tary character I forebear to speak. Let those who desire to be 
informed, consult the report of the Committee of Congress on 
the conduct of the war, and they will find it there ad nauseam 
usque. They will then be convinced if not before, that they 
are leaders not to be followed in the councils of the country, as 
they proved themselves unfit leaders to be followed on the bat- 
tle field. What are the feelings of the true soldier and the 
advice which he gives to the people whom he has saved, was 
made known in a convention of hundreds of the most distin- 
guished, assembled in Cleveland in September last. To their 
recent foes in answer to a friendly dispatch, they said that they 
hailed "with pleasure every effort to restore peace, prosperity 
and brotherly affection throughout one entire country." That 
"war has its virtues, but peace and union are blessings for 
which we will manfully contend until harmony and justice are 
restored under the Constitution." 

And, in convention, they resolved in the very words of the 
Congressional resolution to which I have before referred you, 
that their "object in taking up arms was to suppress the late 
rebellion, was to defend and maintain the supremacy of the 
Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, 
equality and rights of the several States unimpaired, and not 
in any spirit of oppression for any purpose of conquest and sub- 
jugation." So spoke the veteran Wool, the gallant Granger, 
the dashiDg Custer, and the hundreds of noble spirits consti- 
tuting the convention and to whose daring and skill we in a 
great measure owe the integrity of the Union. But, the lesson 
now sought to be inculcated, is not what these men seek to 
teach. Is their advice to be disregarded and their conduct re- 
pudiated ? With an assurance absolutely amusing, these gal- 
lant men are told by one who never won a battle, or was within 
pistol shot of the enemy, that if they are seen rallying again 
around the flag of their country and supporting the constitu- 



15 

tional authority of the President, they and their army "will 
be swept away like a cobweb." Idle prediction. Let the 
crisis come, and such braggarts will never be found, as they 
never have been, within the reach of danger. 

Fellow-citizens : — These teachers of the revolting doctrine are 
not. the lights to guide us. If followed they will lead, as they 
have ever heretofore led, but to disaster. The soldiers and 
sailors on whose guidance you can only safely rely, are the 
men who led your troops and ships from victory to victory, 
until their efforts resulted in a glorious success. 

Let me take another view. Can the Southern States be 
securely governed in any other relation than as States of the 
Union ? Can they be ruled as provinces, and their people 
treated as enemies ? Here some statistics from the last census 
furnish instruction. Those States have a territorial area of 
660,608 square miles, possessing greater fertility than it is 
thought is to be found within any other continuous space in 
the world. They contain a white population of 4,604,000, and 
a black of 3,806,000, making a total of seven and a half mil- 
lions. The first are as intelligent as the people of the other 
States, and in personal bravery, firmness, and love of their 
native soil, are unsurpassed. These qualities were demonstrated 
during the late dreadful struggle. They finally yielded to 
superior numbers and greater physical power alone. Can such 
;t people be long safely ruled as conquered enemies? Can such 
an area be long and safely governed as a subjugated province? 
If this can be done it can only be by force of arms. Content in 
such a state of things is not to be expected. Each of such 
States must have quartered upon it an army, and each inhabi- 
tant be denied the use of arms. They are to be taxed but 
not represented, governed but not consulted, to obey but not 
to murmur. What will not be the cost of such a policy? To 
insure anything like safety will require hundreds of thousands 
of soldiers. The hazard of insurrections will be constant. 
That is a danger incident to every conquered country. From ex- 
perience as well as reading, no one knew this better than 
the first Napoleon. In a letter to his brother Joseph, who he 
was seeking to make King of Naples, of the 2d of March, 1806, 



16 

admonishing him to be ever watchful, and to so locate his army 
as to suppress outbreaks, he said: "In all your calculations 
assume this, that a fortnight sooner or a fortnight later you 
will have an insurrection. It is an event of uniform occurrence 
in a conquered country." If the statement was true, as no 
doubt it was, in regard to the demoralized and subdued Neapoli- 
tans, how much more true will it prove to be in regard to the 
men of the South. Brave by nature and by descent, conscious 
of it, knowing — the result of experience on many a battle-field, 
both as friend and enemy — that in this respect they are the 
equals of their would-be masters, how long would they quietly 
submit ? How long would the world say that they should sub- 
mit? How long before insurrections would occur, and to 
subdue them what would be the sacrifice of life and treasure ? 
And then, too, what a spectacle we would present to other 
nations ? The war waged, and only legally and justifiably 
waged, to restore and maintain the authority of the Govern- 
ment, and that accomplished, and yet no peace — no happiness, 
and a still dissevered Union. Whilst the war was being waged 
all these were promised, but now they are not. Brothers at 
war with brothers, who surrendered their arms on an assur- 
ance of peace and equal dignity, and equality of rights to their 
States, and yet to be kept in dishonoring, slave-like subjection. 
If this shall happen, how dark will be the page on which his- 
tory shall record the story? How will other nations wonder 
and censure us? How will the cause of American constitu- 
tional freedom — heretofore a bright example the world over, 
strengthening human liberty by animating and cheering its 
votaries — suffer? Heaven forbid that it shall be so wounded in 
the house of its friends, that those whose ancestors were the 
first to place it upon what they thought was a firm basis never 
to be shaken, shall be the cause of its ruin, under circumstances 
that will justify after ages to write as its epitaph, "destroyed 
by an attempt to secure the ascendency of a political party." 

Should the catastrophe happen, then, to use the language of 
Mr. Madison, when he supposed that counsels might prevail 
that would render impossible a Union of all the States, will 
occur the "ruin of all those cheering hopes for human freedom 



17 

inspired by the American Revolution, whoso glory would be 
forever blasted by so discreditable and disastrous an issue to 
its toils and sacrifices." 

But, further. The doctrine I am attempting to confute is 
that the Southern States are not States, but Territories, — that 
the recent, war has reduced them to that condition and that they 
must remain in it until Congress shall make them States. The 
(''institution establishes a Government consisting of three seve- 
ral departments, legislative, executive, and judicial, each with- 
in its prescribed orbit being made independent of the others. 
The action of either within such orbit is binding upon the 
whole. Now what has been done by these several departments? 

1. As you have seen. Congress, the legislative department, 
whilst the war was progressing declared that when it should 
end in the suppression of the insurrection, each State where it 
was prevailing, should be as it was before, a State, not a Terri- 
tory or Province. 

2d. By an act passed without objection after the war was 
commenced, they apportioned to such States the number of rep- 
resentatives to which they were entitled, and to the loyal States 
the number to which they were entitled. This act is wholly 
without constitutional warrant except upon the hypothesis that 
the former were States as well as the latter. 

3d. The Constitution expressly prohibits the division of a 
State into two or more States without the consent of Congress. 

In the case of Virginia, Congress did assent to her being so 
divided by an act passed in 1862 "for the admission of West 
Virginia into the Union." And by a letter from the late dis- 
tinguished and truly patriotic Attorney General of the United 
States, Edward Bates, dated August 8th, 18fi0, recently pub- 
lished, we are told that President Lincoln requested each mem- 
ber of his Cabinet to give him his opinion "as to both the con- 
stitutionality and expediency" of such act. That each gave 
the opinion that it was expedient and '-'assumed as undisputed 
doctrine" that notwithstanding "ordinances of secession or the 
fact of open rebellion" a State continues to all intents to be a 
State of the Union. At that time Mr. Chief Justice Chase 
was an eminent leader of the republican party and was a mera- 
3 



18 

ber of the Cabinet. That in tlie.se opinions Mr. Lincoln con- 
curred, and on that ground approved the act. These opinions, 
Mr. Bates says, are now or should be on file in the executive 
department. He also tells us, what is certainly true, unless 
Senator Sumner be an exception, that at that period there was 
"no republican in Congress or in the executive department who 
"pretended to believe that a State could withdraw itself from 
"the Union by secession or rebellion, or both together, and 
"that President Lincoln and both Houses of Congress by their 
"repeated solemn acts are pledged to the contrary." Under 
the act alluded to, which was absolutely void, unless Virginia, 
who had then passed her secession ordinance and was support- 
ing it by force, temained notwithstanding a State of the Union, 
West Virginia was admitted into the Union and has ever since 
enjoyed all the rights belonging to that relation. And yet 
with a rare inconsistency, and logical absurdity, by the doctrine 
in question, it is now said that Virginia was not then a State, 
but then and is now a subjugated province. 

4. Congress also, during the insurrection, passed an act ap- 
portioning taxation amongst all the States, and since the war 
by another act has extended the time of payment to the South- 
ern States. Neither of these acts is constitutional except upon 
the ground that secession does not effect the constitutional rela- 
tion of the States to the Union. 

5. Congress has appropriated thousands of dollars to pay the 
salaries of Judges, Marshals, District Attorneys and other con- 
stitutional officers appointed by the President and Senate for 
such States. 

And lastly, at the recent session, they passed an act changing 
the judicial circuits of the United States, including among them 
all the Southern States. The validity of this law can only be 
maintained on the ground that they are States of the Union. 

The resolution, too, passed whilst the war was going on, pro- 
posing to the States an amendment of the Constitution abolish- 
ing slavery was submitted, as its tertns required, to the South- 
ern States as well as to the rest. And its ratification has been 
announced because in part of their having assented to it. And 
the resolution of the last session, proposing further amend- 
ments, was also submitted to them. On all these grounds it is 



19 

clear the legislative department of the Government is estopped 
from denying that such States and their people are entitled to 
all the rights and subject only to the same obligations which the 
Constitution gives to and imposes on the other States and their 
people. 

2. 'The appointing power, the President and Senate, by their 
acts are also estopped from denying it. 

1st. The present President and his predecessor by their ap- 
proval of the several laws to which I have adverted. 2nd. By 
appointing Judges and other officers connected with the Judi- 
ciary for such States, who are now discharging their ap- 
propriate functions. 3rd. The Senate by having admitted in- 
to the body Senators from West Virginia. 

II. The Judicial department. 1st. Under the Judiciary 
Act of '89 the Judges of the Supreme Court are directed from 
time to time to distribute the Judicial circuit amongst them- 
selves. Whilst the insurrection was going on they made such 
a distribution, including within it the Southern as well as the 
other States. 2nd. Since its suppression, cases pending in that 
court by appeal or writ of error from the courts of such States, 
have been heard and decided in like manner as cases from the 
other States and mandates transmitted, and the judgments en- 
forced in the same way. This could not be done if those States 
in the view of the Supreme Court were not States of the Union 
but territories. For it was long since decided by that tribune 
that the Judicial Department of the Government, created by 
the Constitution, with the life tenure of the Judges, applies 
only to the States and not the territories of the United States. 
That the latter (the territories) can only have such a Judiciary 
with such Jurisdiction and Judicial tenure of office as Con- 
gress may prescribe. This action of the Supreme Court there- 
fore is conclusive that in their judgment, the Southern States 
were during the rebellion, and are now, States and not terri- 
tories. The result of these several views is that in the judg- 
ments of Presidents Lincoln and Johnson they are States — in 
the judgment of the Senate they are States — in the judg- 
ment of the Supreme Court they are States, and in the judg- 
ment of Congress they are States, and finally in the judg- 
ment of Congress and President Lincoln and his Cabinet, when 



20 

the joint resolution of ? 61 and the act for the admission into 
the Union of West Virginia were passed they were, and would 
continue to he States and not territories when the insurrection 
should he suppressed. 

Fellow Citizens : — I have tteated the subject more in detail 
than perhaps you may consider necessary. It is, however, an 
important one, and in the present aspect of things may he a 
vital one. The now Congressional plan as contra distinguished 
from that of Presidents Lincoln and Johnson, for their plans 
are identical, practically deals with the Southern States as 
territories. Between the two plans you and the country are 
to choose. The Presidential plan, had it prevailed when first 
announced, would long since have restored the Union and 
thereby have brought peace, prosperity and happiness to our now 
distracted land. The Congressional plan has unwisely, and as 
I think, unconstitutionally delayed these happy results, and 
promises to delay them indefinitely. It rests upon the doctrine 
that the rank of the States of the South is lost, and the infe- 
rior one (if rank it can be called) of territories acquired not by 
treaty but by conquest and subjugation, has taken its place. 
And that this condition is to continue until Congress shall de- 
cide when and on what terms it is to be changed, and that they 
are to make this decision not by a legislative act requiring the 
approval of the President necessary to the validity to all their 
other acts and Joint resolutions, but by a concurrent resolve. 
To say nothing of its unconstitutionality, in my judgment, 
a more inexpedient, mischievous proposition in its application 
to the present or any future state of the country, cannot be con- 
ceived. 

It is injurious to the material interests of all the States, and 
what is infinitely worse, is pregnant with danger that may 
prove fatal to all. As to the material interest, indulge me 
with a word or two. I have already reminded you of the ex- 
tent of country embraced by the Southern States, and of the 
number of its population. Its capacity for wealth is almost 
unlimited. Before the war, when slave labor was almost the 
only labor used, its personal property, (excluding slaves) and its 
products, was of immense value. 



21 

The census of 1800 informs us, 1st, That its live stock was 
more than three hundred and thirty-one millions of dollars, 
rive times the value of that of the New England States. _d, 
Its cotton crop, estimated only at ten cents per pound, was 
worth two hundred millions. 3d, The rice of Georgia and 
South Carolina at half its present price, ten millions. 4th, Its 
tobacco one hundred and fifty millions of pounds. Its sugar 
fourteen millions. Its Indian corn two hundred and twenty- 
two millions of bushels, being thirty-one bushels to each inhab- 
itant, when New England produces but three bushels for each. 
It produces twenty-one and a half millions of bushels of wheat, 
being two and a half bushels for each person, when New Eng- 
land furnishes but twelve quarts. The sheep raised in Geor- 
gia, North Carolina and Texas outnumber those in New Eng- 
land, and the hogs raised in Georgia alone, were six times as 
many as those in that section, and all that were raised 
in the Southern States were thirty-three times as many. — 
And finally, the value of the farms was one thousand four 
hundred and five millions of dollars, whilst those in New 
England were but four hundred and seventy-five millions. 
Who doubts that this disparity will be much greater now that 
free is to be substituted for slave labor, after peace shall be 
fully secured to the South, and such labor properly organized, 
and the rights of the South recognized. It is not to exaggerate to 
say that in a few years it will be at least one-half greater. But 
even if it shall not be increased, how important would be its 
former wealth and its productions to the other, and especially to 
the Eastern States. The comparative infertility of their soil, its 
want of adaptation to the growth of the most essential products, 
its limited area, and the necessity of its people for a market 
near at hand for their manufactures which they are so admira- 
bly fitted to produce, all show that the prosperity of the New 
England States is intimately connected with the prosperity of 
the South. Again, the war has involved us in debts of im- 
mense magnitude. As now ascertained, that of the United 
States exceeds three thousand millions of dollars, and that of 
each State is large in proportion. These debts must and will 
be discharged. No man ventures to assert the contrary. But 



00 



to do so will require all the resources of the country. To in- 
crease these resources is to benefit us all. The South once more 
our fellow-citizens in all things, bringing into the common 
treasury the wealth which they can supply, uniting it with 
our own will render the task an easy one. Taxation now so 
heavily pressing upon us will be less to each man, because 
there will be more men to meet it and its basis, property, will be 
greatly enlarged. Now, the South is not able to pay its pro- 
portion of the internal tax, or to engage directly or indirect- 
ly in foreign trade, and in that way to add to the revenue from 
imports. And this will continue to be their condition as long 
as they are kept and treated as a subjugated people. This 
must necessarily paralize exertion, create a spirit of hos- 
tility to the Government, prevent a return of former prosper- 
ity, and thus seriously affect the other States, and impair their 
ability to meet the public demands, whilst securely to govern 
such a people, will, every day it continues, greatly increase the 
public expenses. 

Let it not be said that they are not to be recognized as States 
because their citizens are not to be trusted. The people of 
Maryland can not be made to believe this. Our associations 
with them have been constant, enabling us to understand their 
character better, and we know that they may be trusted. 
Slavery, the once fruitful cause of sectional dissention being 
abolished, peaceful secession having been found impossible, and 
forced secession equally so, we are now or will be, if we come 
together in a proper spirit, a homo-geneous people with no 
rivalries but these which may be exhibited in efforts to increase 
the prosperity and renown of an equally loved common country. 
Southern men are to be trusted. So thought every enlightened 
Northern man prior to the late war. One of these, now unfor- 
tunately no more, in whom the whole nation took pride, who 
explored nearly all the depths of science and literature, rivalled 
the eloquence of Cicero, and even through that power was able 
to plant still deeper in the hearts of his countrymen, grat- 
itude and reverence for Washington, speaking of the South, 
said: "For myself I have found in every part of the coun- 
try generous traits of character, vast and well under- 
stood capacities of progress, and hopeful auguries of good. 



And taken in the aggregate it is the abode of a popula- 
tion as intelligent, as prosperous, as moral, and as religious as 
any to be found on the surface of the globe." So spoke Edward 
Everettin Boston on the nation's anniversary in 1858. That 
such a people can be confided in, who can doubt. If there be 
such a one at the North he will cease to do so when he remem- 
bers that during our revolution, when the men of Boston were 
famishing, Virginia and Carolina at the earliest moment saved 
them from starvation by sending them corn and rice. The 
people of our country are not made to be enemies, having 
fought on the same fields and shared in the same glory. Their 
past career constitutes a bond too strong to be ever entirely 
sundered. Their common progress — their former great pros- 
perity and the unbounded future prosperity with principles and 
a flag common and glorious to all unless God shall desert 
us, must 1j :eep us for all time one nation, destined not only 
to " Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our pos- 
terity,'"' but to lead the world on to freedom. But return to 
the pecuniary interest we have in the restoration of the South. 
\V hat would not the loss to the other States be, if by some ele- 
mental strife the South was engulphed in ruin ? And yet except 
in degree, their loss will not be less if it is engulphed in politi- 
cal ruin. Or suppose that it now belonged to another nation, 
would not the people of the now represented States, and 
especially those of the Northern and Western, be anxious to 
acquire it? What price would they not be willing to give 
for it ? And would they propose any dishonoring, degrading 
conditions or not gladly promise equal rights and dignity to 
its inhabitants? Would they for a moment think, if they 
acquired it, of holding it as a conquered or subjugated province 
and treating its people accordingly? Would they not. on the 
contrary, as wasdone in the instances of Louisiana and Florida, 
agree that its inhabitants should be " Incorporated in the Union 
of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, ac- 
cording to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the 
enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens 
of the United States t" 

But it is said that it is for the legislative department alone 
to admit into or exclude Southern States from the Union. For 



24 

this, there is no warrant in the Constitution. The powers of 
that department arc especially limited. The article which c<m- 
fers them, in its preamble, states what these arc. Its lan- 
guage is "nil legislative powers iikrein granted,"— not all 
legislative powers. If then, the power of restoration or admis- 
sion of the Statjs in question, was in its nature, a legislative 
one, it is still not in congress for it is nowhere, in terms, or by 
implication delegated to that depart aent. But in fact, in its 
nature, it is an executive power. The recognition of a foreign 
State, is with the President. The recognition of belligerent 
rights in the parties to a civil war in a foreign State, is with the 
President, and he is also to determine when such rights have 
ceased. Why should it be otherwise in the case of such a war 
among ourselves, and ^specially why should it be in the present 
instance, when Congress by law gave to the President the 
authority by proclamation to announce the existence ofthe war, 
and to prohibit all commercial intercourse between the people 
of the loyal and disloyal sections, or between the people of the 
latter and the subjects of other nations, and made it his duty to 
restore such intercourse, when, in his judgment the insurrec- 
tion terminated. Even conceding then that the power is in any 
-respect a legislative one and belongs to Congress, they exerted 
it by passing the law referred to and what the President has 
done under such law, his having proclaimed the war ended and 
having restored the prohibited intercourse, places the States in 
the condition in which they were before the insurrection, and 
consequently gives them the right to be represented in Congress. 
To be recognized as States, as I have shown you they are. by 
the Judicial department, by the Executive department, and in 
various most solemn acts by the Legislative department, and 
possessing and enjoying all the rights and subject to all the 
obligations which belong to States ofthe Union under the two 
first, and some ofthe rights and all the obligations dependent 
upon the latter department, why in the name of common sense 
is it, that they are not entitled to the most essential of all rights, 
the right of representation ? That this right can be denied them 
is a proposition for which I think no reason having even the 
semblance of plausibility can be assgineJ. But such represen- 
tation and representation in the next presidential electoral 



25 

college are denied them. Without wishing to impute improper 
motives for the action of Congress in this respect, it is difficult 
to imagine any other than the one lately avowed, that it is the 
policy of the party represented by the majority to exclude 
such States, until the next Presidential election is had. 
This being done, the triumph of the republican, or rather the 
radical party is considered certain. Can those who seek that 
end through such means, count the hazard of the experiment? 
It is certain, that a large majority of the people of all the States 
sincerely believe that the excluded States will be entitled to be 
represented at that election, whatever may be the conduct of 
Congress. Suppose then, an event more than probable, that elec- 
tors are chosen in such States at that election, (as they surely 
will be) and that the persons voted for by them, as President 
and Vice President receive with their votes, and the votes of 
some of the other States, a majority of the whole number of 
votes, will they be recognized as duly elected, or the persons 
who may receive a majority only of the votes cast by the electors 
of the Northern States? I think his mind must border on 
insanity who shall believe the latter. If neither shall be so 
recognized and their respective rights be maintained by force, 
what then ? What then ? I forbear to anticipate. The hor- 
rors of the strife just over, are too fresh. The blood of slaugh- 
tered thousands still mires too many battlefields, the yet smoking 
ruins of what were lately happy homesteads, the abodes of 
happiness and the seats of refinement, are too visibly before 
me to leave me the heart to anticipate the calamities of a re- 
newed civil war. Every imagination not blunted by insensi- 
bility or maddened by ferocity, can readily picture them. 
None but a fiend, an outcast from Heaven, can desire the re- 
newal of such a strife. If there be any men who shall think 
that a justification for it is to be found in the. misconduct of our 
Southern brothers, it would be well for them in rebuking "their 
brethren for the faults of men, not to display themselves the 
passions of demons." What all good men should seek is what 
Burke sought during our Revolution — peace, not peace through 
the medium of war, not peace to arise out of discord, not peace 
as may be settled the marking of the shadowy boundaries of a 
complex government, but ' 'peace sought in the spirit of peace, 
4 



26 

laid in principles purely pacific." Any other peace will be of 
•short duration. | Peace obtained^ by force, and to gratify 
avarice, will be full of trouble and disappointment. For, as 
the same great man" said upon the same occasion, Providence 
"has decreed vexation to violence and poverty to rapine." No 
domestic trouble was e ver soon or ever happily terminated by 
other than peaceful means. 

Conciliation, when the exigency does not sternly demand force 
can alone accomplish it. This all history proves. As long 
as the subjugation of Scotland was attempted by war, every 
crao* and fastness contained what England called a rebel, and 
}n arms. Her policy was changed. Force failing, conciliation 
was resorted to, and the happy effect was electrical. The 
stru <TOr le at once ended ; Scotchmen were placed on the same 
footing with Englishmen, and from that period to this, peace 
has reigned on her whole border, and in the councils and on the 
field Scotchmen have equally contributed to the civil and military 
renown of the kingdom. Towards Ireland the policy of force and 
exclusion from participation in the Government was pursued, and 
for ages they have produced their uniform fruits — tumult, vio- 
lence, insurrections. Ireland, consequently, has been but an 
expense and a weakness to the kingdom, instead of being, as she 
might have been made by the opposite policy, a source of its 
wealth and power. Even now, the fleets of England are hovering 
around the Green Isle, and her armies traversing her fields, to 
guard against an apprehended outbreak, and wherever Irish- 
men are to be found they are offering their treasure and their 
arms, and avowing a determination to recover at all hazards 
what they assert has been long lost through oppression — their 
liberty. These two instances, if there were no others, furnish 
a lesson that should guide us. Treat the South as England ul- 
timately treated Scotland, and all will be peace and prosperity. 
Treat it as Ireland was once treated, and by her sons is said 
now to be treated, and our fleets must hover around our South- 
ern coast, and our armies fill the Southern fields. A few words 
more in connection with this subject and I shall leave it. 

President Johnson is assailed with a malignant violence 
never exhibited in our past political contests. Every abusive 
epithet that the most depraved imagination can suggest is ap- 



27 

plied to him. He is even charged with treason to the country. 
His heretofore public life furnishes him no impunity. To such 
men it is immaterial that in his whole antecedent career he ex- 
hibited a pure love of our land and devotion to its institutions. 
To them it is immaterial that at the outbreak of the insurrec- 
tion he almost alone in the Senate, denounced, and in the most 
indignant eloquence, the contemplated treachery and the par- 
ties engaged in it. It is immaterial, that during the war he 
subjected himself to constant peril and devoted every faculty 
he possesses to its success. Immaterial that the measures 
which he has adopted and recommends for the restoration of 
the Union, are, in all substantial respects the same as those 
adopted and recommended by Mr. Lincoln, and which at the 
moment of his death, as far as his power extended, he was car- 
rying out. It is immaterial that although Mr. Lincoln was 
bitterly censured by the leaders of the present crusade against 
Mr. Johnson, who vainly endeavoured to defeat his re-nomina- 
tion, that he was so nominated and elected, and that Mr. 
Johnson is pursuing the policy of that lamented statesman. For 
so doing, treason to his country and to his party are alleged 
against him and his expulsion by impeachment is demanded. The 
enlightened sentiment of the world is known to be with him. Not 
a vessel arrives from abroad that does not bring evidence of 
this, and that the course of his revilers is stongly condemned. 
Party, for a time, seems to make these men forgetful of their 
country, its peace and its honor. AVill they be able to make 
the country forgetful? If they shall, sad and dear will be the 
cost to us all. In the Judgment of the world we will have 
proved incapable of Self-Government, and at the same time 
prove that man nowhere is capable — for if we are not, who 
are? Monarchy or despotism (for men must have a govern- 
ment) will take the place of the republican form, and the lib- 
erty we have been taught to know and value, will for ages, if 
not for ever, be lost to mankind. I told you in the outset that 
the condition of our country is alarming — is it not so? The 
impeachment of the President, and his suspension during its 
pendancy are threatened for advising measures which more than 
one-half of the people of the United States approve. 



-( 



28 

The whole land is heaving in agitation. A political earth- 
quake threatens us with destruction. Ten States it is said are 
already destroyed, and are so dealt with by Congress. They 
are alleged to be a mere heap of chaotic materials, to be brought 
into cohesion and with such shapes as Congress may devise. 
If this be so, as far as these States are concerned, the glorious 
work of our fathers is destroyed. All the stars and stripes which 
from the first of our couutry have "braved the battle and the 
breeze," are said not now to belong to our national standard. 
And yet, yet amidst all this gloom, let us not despair. There are 
still grounds for hope. Let us .nerve ourselves to the effort of 
meeting the danger, kindle our patriotism by the remembrance 
of that of our fathers. Catch the pure spirit of love of coun- 
try which guided and animated and strengthened them during 
their perils. Let us invoke Heaven to endow us with their 
wisdom and firmness, and above all to cause us to listen to the 
counsels, imitate the conduct, and keep ever before us the 
memory of Washington, and all may yet be well — quiet soon 
take the place of agitation, and friendship and brotherly affec- 
tion of estrangement and enmity. And each State, as our 
fathers intended, and as it has heretofore done, form a part, 
and an equal part of the great constellation, and retain its 
long honored place in the symbol of our united power. It can- 
not be, let us reverently believe, that Providence will permit 
the folly and wickedness of man to destroy, what for the good 
of mankind it employed the wisdom and virtue of man to es- 
tablish. In its inscrutable wisdom it may suffer the work to 
be apparently in peril, its light to be eclipsed, but Tet us con- 
fidently hope, and in that hope find consolation that it will not 
allow it to be extinguished. It has been a light to us and to the 
world, and though now partially concealed, its return in all its 
brilliancy may assuredly be looked for. 

'•No star is ever lost 
We once have seen, 
We always may be 
What we once have been." 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 744 675 3 



